Eggdev: The state of eggdrop1.9

Jeff Fisher guppy at
Sun Apr 22 20:15:08 CST 2007

Sven Trenkel wrote:
> Hi eggdev,
> looks like the mail server is working again, yeay for that.

Totally my fault -- I've been rather distracted.

> The oldbotnet support for eggdrop1.9 is now kinda complete. "Kinda"
> means that everything that is not related to (user)file transfers and
> sharing is supported and those things will never be, because it just
> doesn't work, the data that has to be shared is just too different. some
> things, like .modules and .who is only supported for relay, if the bot
> itself is the target, it only triggers a bind no one is listening to at
> the moment. On the bright side, that means it makes no difference if the
> command was done by a local or a remote user once the bind is implemented.

Cool -- I've been looking for the commit logs. Very nice work.

> The next step would be to implement a newbotnet module. I've seen some
> discussions about that here but IIRC there was never a decision about
> anything, not even binary vs text. So, if anyone's still interested,
> here are my ideas about it:
> 1. Text. plain and simple. Most internet protocols are plain text and
>    probably for a good reason.


> 2. A lot like the old one. It works so there shouldn't be too much to
>    change about it.

Some things bother me and I'll write up an e-mail on that once I get 
some time -- it's nothing major though.

> 3. Announce everyone who connects to a bot to the whole botnet. People
>    can trigger botnet events even without being on a channel and having
>    to deal with non-existent people sucks.
> 4. Simplify the source part of a message. Like the IRC protocol. Right
>    now every message has the source part on a different position in a
>    different format. Make it simple, like "source command [optional]".
>    Encode the source in the same format every time. Just the botname if
>    it's from a bot, "id at bot" if it's from a person. Don't send the nick,
>    that's just a waste of bandwidth. That could safe a lot of code for
>    message parsing.

Totally agreed.

> 5. Allow binary data in some kind of messages, like "zapf" (what does
>    that mean anyway?) That could easily be done by escaping a newline to
>    '\n', a backslash to '\\' and a null byte to '\0'. This way it's
>    still a text protocol and the scripts don't have to worry about
>    sending binary data.

Good idea. I'm fine with escaping.

> So, any comments on that? I'll probably start implementing it next week
> or so.

Just that I can't wait to see the code :)

More information about the Eggdev mailing list